"President Bush looks forward to traveling to a democratic Iran, an Iran where its leaders allow freedom of speech and assembly for all of its people," said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "And an Iran where the leaders mourn the victims of the Holocaust, not call for the destruction of Israel."

Once more, with feeling: Ahmadinejad did not call for the destruction of Israel. The other criticisms, though, are valid, or would be, coming from any source other than this administration. Ahamdinejad was elected to his position, and although Iran's electoral process is highly flawed, it's not as though no one has ever questioned how Bush got into the White House. Twice. What's that you say about "voter caging"? Bite your tongue. We're a free, democratic country that doesn't visit with oppressors and dictators.

Well, except for when Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam Husseinin 1983. And when Vice President Dick Cheney visited Saudi Arabia last year (ties to Sept. 11? Opressors of women? The heck, you say!). President George H.W. Bush, too, visited Saudi Arabia back in 1990. Now, granted, that was to visit U.S. troops, and I'm sure that our current president would be only too happy to visit our troops -- or Blackwater employees -- in Iran, preferably under a "Mission Accomplished" sign hanging from a tower at an oil refinery. He won't be anywhere near the Oil Ministry building we accidentally bombed in 2003. Because that would just bring up what will no doubt still be unfolding in Iraq, the country we meant to be bombing (for shoddily fabricated reasons) when we invaded Iranian airspace and dropped a few missiles. No big deal.

Until then, Bush ain't settin' foot in I-ran. Still, wouldn't it be a real treat if George were to cowboy up and just go? What's the worst that could happen? He could see the sights, eat some kabobs, and maybe deal with a tough, unscreened question here and there.

Say students asked him about our use of military tribunals for terror suspects and how it jibes with the Geneva Conventions. PerhapsBush would reply, "This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and that Common Article 3 says that, you know, there will be no outrages upon human dignity. That's like -- it's very vague. What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity'? (Here, he may pause for one of his combo shrugs and smirks) That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation." That surely won't get the big laughs that Ahmadinejad's "there are no gays in Iran" comment got at Columbia, but rest assured, people will laugh. Most Iranians, living where they do, aren't even slightly confused about what constitutes an "outrage upon human dignity."

They might ask him about whether he views Iraq as a sovereign nation, which will be unfortunate, as his "I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity" response will sound even stranger in Farsi. Any questions on how he can justify fighting Iran's bid for "nukular" energy while regulators here anticipate receiving applications for nearly 30 new nuclear plants likely will be met with a blank stare.

And, if it all goes terribly wrong and he gets a tongue-lashing in a language he can't understand anyway, Bush can always follow Ahamadinejad's cue and go where he's wanted. Ahamadinejad went to Latin American countries to feel the love -- he licked his wounds with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, then talked investments and such with Evo Morales in Bolivia.